Scientology and sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Original research based almost exclusively on primary sources and without so much as a secondary source establishing notability for this (supposed) sub-topic of Scientology. Justallofthem (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Perhaps I was trying to be too succinct in my nom as I have in the past gone very much the other way. As I mention below: If you examine the article you will see that my premise is not specious; the only on-topic bit of the article that is sourced from reliable secondary material is the little bit where Hubbard said he recommends no sex during pregnancy. Perhaps deserving of mention in another article, but not having its own. Cirt's analysis notwithstanding, this article is not well-sourced in RS secondary materials. Other than the bit I mention above the other non-CofS sources are either non-notable and non-reliable POV pieces or are related to tangential material. It is simple to provide the appearance of RS secondary sourcing by referencing material not central to the theme of the article. For example, I could characterize Scientology as "controversial" and Hubbard as a "science fiction writer" and source both of those well. That would add two more reliable sources to the article but in actual fact I would have simply padded the reference list. I am not saying that the tangential references were included to pad the list, I am simply asking reviewers to look a little deeper. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are actually WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources given in the article itself already, including:
  • Cooper, Paulette, The Scandal of Scientology, Chapter 3, "Life and sex in the Womb"
  • Malko, George, Scientology: The Now Religion, Chapter 5
  • Robert Kaufman, Inside Scientology/Dianetics, pt.1
  • See also news, books, scholar

This is certainly a subject that has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and should be kept and expanded upon with additional info from other secondary sources, and the info reliant solely upon primary sources should be pruned - but AfD is not the correct venue to discuss that. Cirt (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Cirt, as an exercise, how do "Malko, George, Scientology: The Now Religion, Chapter 5" and "Robert Kaufman, Inside Scientology/Dianetics, pt.1" relate to the subject of the article? --Justallofthem (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Simply pointing out that there are some secondary sources present in the article from whence to research additional information, but at any rate the subject matter is discussed in many other secondary sources, enough so that the article can be improved upon further with additional secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Mkay. My point being that the so-called "secondary sourcing" for this article relates mostly to tangential material and that the article itself is almost entirely original research based on primary materials. Something I would expect you to stand strongly against, given your prior edit history on just those grounds. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is well-sourced. Edward321 (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This AfD seems like deja vu all over again. Secondary sources sufficient to meet N and V exist in the article. Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the other one is the deja vu. I did this one first and then noticed that the other article had basically identical issues. A common occurrence in posting AFDs, I would imagine. Please judge them each on their individual merits, they are separate AFDs. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep This diff shows the difference in the article since the last AfD, which had a clear consensus for keep. Nominators rationale is false, as secondary sources are currently used in the article, contrary to the statement "without so much as a secondary source establishing notability for this (supposed) sub-topic of Scientology". DigitalC (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume that you are demonstrating that the article has not substantially changed since is survived AFD last time? All due respect but that is not cause for a speedy keep, see Wikipedia:Speedy keep. If you examine the article you will see that my premise is not specious; the only on-topic bit of the article that is sourced from reliable secondary material is the little bit where Hubbard said he recommends no sex during pregnancy. Perhaps deserving of mention in another article, but not having its own. --Justallofthem (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cirt. As with the Homosexuality and Scientology article, this one clearly meets WP:N and WP:V. Themfromspace (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nothing to indicate why the previous AFD from 10 months ago should be overturned. If there's a content issue that has developed since then, then discussions at the article level can be undertaken with respect to this, with one option being rolling back the article to its state in February 2008 when the AFD passed. I also have basically the same viewpoint on this article as I have expressed on the above AFD regarding "Homosexuality and Scientology", but I won't spam this AFD by cut-and-pasting it, since it's a bit lengthy. Scroll up. ;-) 23skidoo (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]